Fake…..overhovedet ikke.

For det ER en temmelig nøjagtige beskrivelse af hvad man som vantro kommer ud for, hvis man går i diskurs med rettroende.

De rettroende er sørme da ligeglade med hvorvidt vi andre læser disse vejledninger.

Præcist som de er ligeglade med om vi f.eks. læser The Muslim Brotherhood´s manual, “The Muslim Manifesto” omhandlede en strategi for overlevelse indenfor i endnu ikke-islamiske vestlige lande .

Eller at vi vantro gennem læsning af Tariq Ramadan´s bog om europæisk islam finder ud af, at dette er et umuligt projekt.

Tanker, som han ikke selv kan være helt foruden at gøre sig jvf. den viden og indsigt han har i europæiske forhold og de europæiske mentaliteter.

Nej, man kan ikke nødvendigvis sige Fake. Islam Watch er ‘Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims. Listen er angiveligt stillet op af en kender – På samme hjemmeside findes en tilhørende ret omfattende medlemsliste over frafaldne ex-muslimer, som stimulerer troværdigheden!
En af dem hedder: Ayesha Ahmed. Men der kan stadig være tale om enten dæknavne – eller Fake.
Jeg tror, det kan være den rene vare. Her er en række spørgsmål fra hjemmesiden:

Here’re my questions to Muslims:

Q1. Why would God want his creation to not ask, questions, criticize, debate or experiment ideas that he gave us? This can only happen to cover up lies. This is the reason why we can’t question clergy about things like What’s the proof that God exists and what’s the proof that Muhammad is the prophet of God. Seems like a great deceit to make sheep out of humans. Only truth can stand the fierce scrutiny and criticism and still stand tall.

Q2. Why would God make religions appear only in poor, illiterate and desert areas? 1400 years ago, Greek were more scientific and progressive, why religion didn’t appear there instead? I tell you why. Because Muhammad could have only mislead the gullible, ignorant and poor people. In fact, his first followers were actually poor. Rich and literate people thought of him as crazy. Even today, if I go to a illiterate village and proclaim myself as a big saint, millions will follow me. That’s how easy it is to make stupid people more stupid. That’s why you don’t see new religions forming in Europe.

Q3. If there is Science in Islam, why didn’t God tell us how old the Universe is, how old Earth is, whether it is round or flat, how long it took for it to cool down, how Life began, how Life evolved? It seems that Allah knew only things that were already known at that time by the Greek and ancient scientists and philosophers. If I start a religion today, I wouldn’t forget to add an ayat, “And thou will not spread mischief in the earth which took us fifteen billion years to make. There are altogether eleven dimensions, yet the unbelievers deny our signs.” Ridiculous!

Q4. Why Abrahamic religions, specifically Islam is exclusivist? How can a truth be confined to some people and not others (people living in other places, other times etc. can’t be all wrong). Buddhism on the other hand is not exclusivist like Islam. Buddha even said don’t believe me, don’t believe your holy books, don’t believe what people say, but believe only what’s true to your heart and mind, because truth can only come from inside, not outside (outside = scriptures, prophets, gods).

Q5. Why would God care about whether people believe in him or not? The creator of the universes and each and every atom in them, can’t be so narrow minded, arrogant or stupid. Because arrogance means ‘covering up negative feelings about self’ and genuine God would rather be full of self-esteem than arrogance. God’s name being ‘Al-Mutakab-bir’ is beyond me.

Q6. Why would God choose a mass murderer, rapist, blasphemer, pedophile, madman and power and sex hungry person as his prophet? Marriage with 9 year old Aisha, Marriage with his daughter-in-law Zainab, Marriage with Javairah, his slave after killing his father, husband and brother the same day, killing others just because they don’t believed him, killing someone if they change their religion, killing without reason, spreading Islam not with discussion, logic or spirituality but with murder and war is beyond me.

Q7. Ali Sina says that Muhammad was a mentally sick person or what you call a narcissist having temporal lobe epilepsy. I watched a video on ‘Temporal Lobe Epilepsy’ on YouTube. It is a BBC documentary and the way it describes about the experiences of people with sensitive temporal lobe resembles exactly how Muhammad acted when he used to get revelations, sweating, feeling guilty and sad, feeling that he’ll go mad and that sort of thing. Furthermore, why an angle would make him feel so demonic and depressed is beyond me? Aren’t we humans supposed to experience something enlightening, happy and peaceful when such alleged experiences take place?

Q8. Why shouldn’t we accept for others, laws and morals we deem perfect for ourselves. That’s the only measure of truth. If I speak truth, do good, be gentle, I would want the same to happen to all people. Following this logic, if a Muslim who becomes a Hindu should be killed, shouldn’t we teach these great laws to all other religions. Shouldn’t Hindus, Christians and Jews also kill people who become Muslims? Why not? If what we regard as moral and as truth, shouldn’t that be true to all others?

Q9. It seems that Muhammad was not a nice man, I couldn’t find a single act of kindness from this person in the whole of Islam’s history. The only two stories of kindness were the story of Jew lady who used to throw garbage at prophet and he, at the time of her death came to visit her. And another incident about a young man who used to eat too much sugar and her mother requested Muhammad to ask him to stop it. He didn’t ask him to stop anything but later asked him to stop eating too much sugar because this time around he himself stopped eating too much sugar. Both of these stories are fables and are not found in Quran, Hadiths or the complete Islamic History. If I am wrong, find me any ayat or hadith matching these stories. I will not become apostate if you can tell me a single incident of kindness ever done by Muhammad. Remember, you can’t tell me about what Muhammad said to his followers about how to conduct life and be kind etc. I want his own personal acts of kindness only. Any Schmuck can ask others to do good and himself do otherwise.

Q10. Why a person who is religious is more prone to absurdities and away from reality of life? Why an educated person is less likely to be religious? Doesn’t that mean that religion is for the gullible, weak and immature? Why was Einstein, the most intelligent person who walked on earth was not religious. If it didn’t worked for him (most intelligent) How can you claim that you know better? If he worked it out without religion, why it won’t work for you?

Q11. If God created us and sent Adam from Heaven to Earth, why are there fossils found for all early primates that were neither chimp nor humans? Checkout this link. What does God created something actually mean? Wherever science looks, it finds some process involved, no magic! Is God subjugated to natural laws? In our present lives we don’t see magic happening, no waters parted, no virgin births, no moons being cut and no back to the future Miraj happening. Humans have always attributed magical thinking to past and future events to make a sense of the world they live in. In other words, ‘I didn’t see it happen therefore magic man did it!’ Doesn’t it make sense?

Q12. If we have souls and are either to go to heaven or hell, why don’t animals have souls? Since we’ve evolved from animals, and early humans like homo erectus or homo habilis were intelligent too (slightly lower than us) would they also be judged on the judgment day? If not, why not? They didn’t have any prophets too, because their brains didn’t think in malignant ways like us. We are more clever. Doesn’t that prove that the more clever we get the more potential we have to become notorious and the most likely it is for a God to appear out of no where? (God didn’t made us in his own image, we made God in our own image).

Q13. Buddhists are more moral than Muslims. They won’t burn embassies, temples and churches to prove they are true. They don’t believe in a God. Does it not mean that morality doesn’t depend upon God or absolute laws but inner resolve and commitment? Only immature and morally bankrupt people need fear of hell or greed of heaven to be moral.

Q14. If Quran is the Guidance from God, why can it be shaped in any way of thinking imaginable? A book of guidance from God should be straight forward and objective rather than being subjective and full of discrepancies. But it seems our Omniscient God thinks like humans and learns via trial and error.

Q15. If the only reason one should stick to religion is because of the uncertainties of the afterlife, what if it turned out that, there in fact is a God who tested us all to see whether we become fools at the hands of authority, religion and society or discover the truth and reality of life. All those who allow themselves to become fools may end up in hell and all those who turn to truth and reality are given heaven. Doesn’t it seem more rational for a thinking person to assume, by observing all the multitudes of religions in the world than to follow Islam?

If no Muslim can answer my questions above within one month, I would consider all my accusations along with my questions as true and would proclaim my apostasy (Period).

Med venlig hilsen

Jeg er ikke uenig med dig, kun at – for mig, i hvert fald – ‘que sera, sera’ nok er det bedste udgangspunkt, og ikke at have nogen forventninger til at det ene eller det andet vil ændre noget væsentligt. Generaliseringer og grove stereotyper er kommet for at blive, og debatten burde derfor tage udgangspunkt i dette forhold. Ikke om DF eller Hedegaard er så eller så skrækkelige for at bruge dem. Andre vil bruge dem – get used to it.

Der er en ny udvikling der kunne blive en tangent som det hele ryger ud af, nemlig med SMS-kæden om ‘regeringspartiet’ der siger sådan-og-sådan om muslimer. Vores modparter har åbenbart den helt defensive indstilling at nu skal vi virkelig gå på æggeskaller, så går det nok.

For det første er det en illusion der ingen vegne vil føre. Alt kan bruges som påkaldelse af krænkelse. Selv taler af paven, eller mønsteret på isbægre der ligner ordet Allah. Modparterne er ude i et håbløst ærinde, og burde i stedet forholde sig til det væsentlige, nemlig hvordan vi manøvrerer bedst i en verden der er undergivet voldelige og uforudsigelige luner. Den selvbeherskelse de åbenbart mener det drejer sig om vil ikke føre til noget, og vil være helt uacceptabel i et åbent og frit samfund.

Modsat finder jeg det svært at forstå den asymmetri som man ser: Mens hadet rettes mod Vesten så forsøger en del her stadig at nå modparten med forståelse. Men måske er det ved at gå op for dem at de er faret vild siden de reagerer så rasende når nogen påpeger problemer med Islam.

Jeg tror at vi er mange der helst var helt fri for at høre nogetsomhelst om Islam mere, men efter de seneste ugers meningsudvekslinger var jeg nået til at den bedste måde at nærme sig det mål på må være at sige tingene så direkte som muligt og ikke skåne de ømme punkter, ellers tror jeg at man går fejl af hinanden.

“If that does not frustrate him, then ask him how much he is being paid by jews to throw dirt on Al Islam”.

Hvad angår de enkelte punkter er vi vist efterhånden klædt på til at kunne tackle dem, hvis ellers man er i en situation hvor man kan få et ord indført, og ikke er fysisk truet.

Man kunne næsten opstille en slags ….. trosbekendelse eller en række teser man kunne sømme fast på Berlingskes hovedindgang: Fremtiden er hvad dette handler om. Dette er det absolut primære. Fremtiden bliver ikke bestemt af hvad meningseliten mener om Dansk Folkeparti, Hedegaard osv. Den bliver heller ikke bestemt af hvad befolkningen mener om Dansk Folkeparti osv. Den bliver heller ikke bestemt af Lars Hedegaard, Jesper Langballe, Niels Krause-Kjær, OBO + chihuahua, Tøger og Engelbreth, Karen Thisted etc. etc.

Det er de langt mere umiddelbare indtryk hos majoritetsbefolkningen der betyder noget, og om disse på et tidspunkt vil få dem til, lissom, at kræve ændringer og indgreb af politikerne. Vi kan måske bidrage med forklaringer på hvorfor muslimske kvinder skal indpakkes, men det tæller ikke i forhold til det umiddelbare indtryk af spøgelser og kludekoner i gadebilledet, eller det forhold at islam fylder grotesk meget i medierne, og kun for noget negativt. Disse indtryk kan vi ikke udbrede mere end de allerede bliver helt af sig selv, og de kan ikke spinnes til den ene eller den anden side af os eller vores modstandere.

How to Debate and Frustrate Infidels
by Ayesha Ahmed
12 Mar, 2007
Dear brothers and sisters in islam:
We live in kuffar country and daily we have to face the infidels who criticize islam and our prophet, and who want to debate us. In an Islamic country if some one did that all we have to do is to announce loudly what he said and the rest is taken care of by an angry mob. The critic is lynched in no time. End of the story. However here we don’t have that luxury as yet. Inshallah in forseeble future after we grow by conversions of morons and criminals in prisons, legal and illegal immigration and procreation we will, inshallah, become a majority and will not have to face this problem on daily basis. However, for the time being following is an approach all muslim brothers and sisters can use when faced with such a pest. Jazakallah Khair. Inshallah the vermin will steer clear of you in future.

1. A popular question is “why islam calls for death of Islamic critics and apostates”. Insist that their info is false. Quote aya “to you your religion and to me my religion”.

2. To answer “Islam spread with sword”, say that it is a big lie spread by the jews and hindus and that quran clearly says ” there is no compulsion in religion”.

3. If some one quotes violent ayas from Koran, accuse him of quoting ayas in bits and pieces and cherry picking .

4. If he then quotes full ayas and ayas before and after, than insist that the translation is wrong.

5. If he brings ten different translations than say correct meanings can be understood only by reading Quran in Arabic.

6. If he happens to be well versed in Arabic language than insist that those ayas don’t mean what they appear to mean as they have allegorical meanings.

7. If he is adamant, than say you cannot understand those ayas and it’s context without reading hadith and sira.

8.. If he shows up with the hadiths and siras in hand and quotes the context of the violent ayas by referring to hadiths of prophet’s rapes, robberies , assassinations and genocides then insist that “all hadiths and siras are heresay and are false, and only truth is in quran.

9. If he says Quran is a man made document and wants proof of it’s divinity then refer to the sciences in Quran and the book written by Dr. Bucaile confirming the sciences in our holy book. You can also quote that Mahatama Gandhi read Quran daily and also spoke highly of it.

10. If he says that Bucaile was on Saudi payroll and that nor he nor Gandhi ever changed their religions and that Bucaile was challenged and proven wrong by many experts then challenge him to ask his experts to debate islamists like Zakir Naik..

11. If the pests still hangs around then change the topic and find faults in other religions and their books.

12. If he continues on then use personal attacks and insult him by calling him a jewish a- hole , a Chinese pig or a hindu dog .

13. If that does not frustrate him, then ask him how much he is being paid by jews to throw dirt on Al Islam.

14. If he still does not stop then run for his mother and sister and use very filthy language.

15. If he is very stubborn and wants to continue, then curse him like “Burn in hell, you will repent on last day, Allah will get you in your grave” etc

16. When all of the above has failed, threaten him with bodily harm and end the debate by drum beating and announcing that you won the debate hands down because Koran is the word of allah.

17. If possible anounce about this debate in an islamist website and that you had won it handily. Such announcements do wonders for the iman of muslim website readers and for dawah operations in prisons to convince low IQ prisoners of the truth of Al Islam.

http://www.islam-watch.org/AyeshaAhmed/debate-frustrate-infidels.htm

Vi ser det her gentagne gange. Ind fra højre kommer en, der skal ind og sætte dehøjreekstreme fremmedhadere, hvor rigtigt mange hader fremmede så meget at de gifter sig med dem, på plads. De kommer med de samme skrøner og samme metodik som da man i sin tid diskuterede med troende kommunister, falske statistikker, fordrejede og direkte løgnagtige “kendsgerninger”, stråmænd og hele baduljen. Så bringer vi de rigtige statistikker, men links og referencer, og da islam fylder alt for meget citater fra koranen. Så sker der det at vi beskyldes for en eller flere af fire tinmg: At citere forkert, at citere ude af kontekst, at uhyrlighederne bragt direkte fra hestens mund (allah) beskriver historiske begivenheder, og til asidst at vi ikke forstår det, fordi vi ikke læser den på arabisk, hvilket vantro i øvrigt ikke må. Så går vi til dem igen, og så skifter metoden til klynk:Vi er onde, vi eer efter den enkelte muslim, det er synd for den flinke grænthandler, og vi er nazister alle til hobe. I tredie runde hvor vi dokumenter at det også er løgn, skifter man taktik og flytter fra det saglige plan til det personlige plan. Der lukkes op for truslerne, “når vi bare bliver mange nok, så skal i bare se”, fredens religion skal man bare være bange for. Derefgter daffer man af fra debatten. Normalt sker det efter anden runde.
Dette billede kan man se på samtlige diskussionsfora i hele versden hvor der er venstreorienterede, muslimer eller begge dele indblandede.

England går interessante tider i møde, det ulmer. Når man tænker på tidligere tiders arbejdskampe, hvor det “kun” drejede sig om arbejdspladser og hele byer der lukkede, og ihukommer hvilke midler der toges i brug fra begge sider, så ville jeg ikke sove roligt hvis jeg var prime minister.

Det er meget hypotetisk, synes jeg. Vi ved desuden også at jihadister gerne bruger f. eks. Afghanistan som legitimering af angreb. De hader os ikke for hvad vi gør, men for hvad vi er: Trodsige vantro. Personligt tvivler jeg på at grov retorik betyder så meget i det større billede, men det er da muligt at det er med til at pirre letantændelige gemytter til handling. So be it. Generaliseringer og grimme ord bringer ikke debatten op på et højere plan, men omvendt at ræsonnere som vores modstandere vil gøre, at ‘vi’ med ‘vores’ retorik er med til at ‘radikalisere’ nogle er endnu værre. Dels fordi det flytter skyld væk fra de handlende ædle vilde, dels fordi tanken om at vi skulle veje vores ord på en guldvægt, ‘or else’, er horribel.

Jeg prøver at bevæge mig væk fra disse overvejelser: Så længe ytringsfriheden ikke er benhårdt styret af et Big Brother-samfund, er grove ord og generaliseringer a fact of life. Det er fuldstændig ligegyldigt hvad vi mener om slig retorik, den er der, den vil forblive der, prøv at komme videre. Vores modstandere vil blive ved med at gå i selvsving over Langballe’rne og Hedegaard’erne. Kunsten må være ikke at lade sig trække med.

Kristeligt Dagblad havde en artikel for ikke så længe siden om tidligere meget debataktive muslimer der var blevet mulet væk af onde danskere. Det var alle sammen folk der ikke havde villet tage afstand fra stening og sharia osv., og KD græd snot over deres triste skæbne: Tænk, at fordomsfulde danskere ikke bare ville acceptere dem for hvad de mener.

Jeg synes det er vanskeligt at gætte på en årsag, især fordi vi ikke ved hvad der foregår bag kulisserne, men også fordi tilfældige omstændigheder kan sætte større forløb i gang, som vi ikke mindst så med Muhammedkrisen. Vi ved så meget at der foregår en massiv elektronisk overvågning, så effektiv at der har været adskillige forpurrede terrorplaner, men ingen vellykkede attentater i Europa, siden 7/7 i London. Vi ved ikke hvad der foregår af tiltag hvor myndigheder lægger pres på imamer osv. for at få dem til at dæmpe gemytterne – og hvilke indrømmelser de måtte få i bytte.

Det vil være letsindigt at tolke stilheden som udtryk for at ‘integrationen’ er ved at falde i hak. De klogere jihadister vil lade tiden arbejde, og derudover kører mange ting jo også i det ‘stille’, hvad angår mediedækning: Voldtægtsstatistikker, skole- og bilbrande, og andre ting vi dækker her.

Man må kigge på de nettokonsekvenser der lige så stille indfinder sig, og som det er komplet umuligt at få en tværgående debat om i dagens klima, hvor det øjeblikkeligt bliver til ‘hadefuldhed’ og forkerte ‘holdninger’. På få år er disse ting blevet accepteret af medier og vælgerflertal i Europa: Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Kurt Westergaard og Robert Redeker vil have brug for livvagter resten af deres liv; islam er fritaget for samme satire som alle andre kan blive genstand for; hele kvarterer i det forfatningsmæssigt sekulære Frankrig lukker ned i forbindelse med fredagsbøn på gaden, osv. Hysteriet over Hedegaard og Langballe illustrerer at disse forhold er så fjernt som nogensinde fra at blive debatteret assertivt og proaktivt: Skal vi bare acceptere at samfundet bliver gradvist forringet på denne måde, eller skal vi begynde at tænke fremad?